


Do You Believe...? : A (poor excuse of a) Treatise on Why I’m Team Cap

by seal



Category: Captain America (Movies), Marvel Cinematic Universe
Genre: Meta
Language: English
Status: Completed
Published: 2016-05-20
Updated: 2016-05-20
Packaged: 2018-06-09 13:14:05
Rating: General Audiences
Warnings: No Archive Warnings Apply
Chapters: 1
Words: 3,569
Publisher: archiveofourown.org
Story URL: https://archiveofourown.org/works/6908641
Author URL: https://archiveofourown.org/users/seal/pseuds/seal
Summary: <blockquote class="userstuff">
              <p>Buckle your backpack straps, you’re in for a frankly way too lengthy tirade and other miscellaneous extraneous thoughts on why I'm on team NO THANKS, I’M NOT SIGNING THAT SHIT. FUCK YOU, THUNDERBUTT AND IRON STANK.</p>
            </blockquote>





	Do You Believe...? : A (poor excuse of a) Treatise on Why I’m Team Cap

I’ve been thinking about this way too much since coming out of watching Civil War, but it’s something I’ve been mulling over and trying to understand my own perspective as well as trying to understand the opposite side. I don’t think I’ve got all of it figured out - I’ve seen the movie on opening night once and only once. I’ve probably missed some things due to the constant internal and once external shrieking I was doing while watching this film so feel free to tell me if I’ve made some mistakes on the details. As a sort of disclaimer, these are strictly my opinions, which is still evolving so maybe this will be completely different by next week. Who knows? I’m putting this down so that I can maybe start to sort through my own thoughts. This discussion is multi-layered and complicated in the way the world always is—marked by individual perspective and living in shades of gray. 

Given the limited information (and oft times deliberate misinformation) in trailers, I wanted to see the whole movie before I made my final decision. The whole premise of this war was that as audience members, we’re supposed to be conflicted. We’re supposed to see valid points on both sides and fall just shy of crying over which child to give up a la Sophie’s Choice. When I went into Civil War, I was tentatively on Cap’s side, but I didn’t want to be. I went in hoping that Tony’s side would give me a solid argument, a point, _something_ that made me question my side, my morals, my beliefs. I wanted SO BAD to feel torn between these people that I’ve come to love over the past eight years. I even thought for a while that I agreed on principle with Iron Man and in practice with Cap. That wasn’t my experience, though. I came out of the theater firmly on Cap’s side. And after reading some of the more (or sometimes less) nuanced arguments for both sides, I’ve never once wavered. 

I hear the arguments for oversight and accountability, and I get it. I understand that people need to be responsible for their actions and the consequences that those actions cause. But whenever I hear or read arguing points of Team Iron Man I always have this visceral gut reaction of “I hear what you’re saying, but you’re wrong.” 

And I thought to myself, why? Why do I feel this way? What is my sticking point here?

In order to start to do that, we needed to strip away the veneer of emotional baggage (guilt, anger, fear, etc.), politics and something I like to call the “what if” abyss that I’ll expand upon later. We start with talking about just principles. Once the basics are hashed out, then you can start adding in more layers of context (which we may or may not get to in this episode of pterodactyl shrieking guised as a meta. Spoilers: we don’t get to it.).

There are these grand overarching ideas of oversight and accountability thrown around in the wake of what does amount to be pretty heavy collateral damage following the prior movies and thus the Sokovia Accords were born. Throwing aside the fact that the Accords themselves, as they are presented in the movie, don’t actually address collateral damage adequately and is (in practice) basically the Winter Soldier program on a larger scale, the concept of superhero oversight and accountability still needs to be fleshed out since it’s closer to the actual heart of the core question that needs to be answered. 

I’m going to focus on the deployment portion of the Accords. I’m not going to address the collateral damage portion here since that’s a dissertation on it’s own and I actually have to use my brain for things other than getting distracted by Steve Roger’s perky tits.

Before I ramble about who ultimately should control and deploy superheroes, we need to address accountability. The way I see it, the term “accountability” is a red herring of sorts. It’s a word that is tossed around quite a bit both in discussions about superheros and in real life and most people don’t actually delve into what the word actually implies. It can seem unnecessary to harp on a definition, but words have multiple meanings and can be interpreted in different ways, and two people using the same word can be talking about two completely different concepts. That’s why the actual word “accountable” needs to be defined so we’re on the same page of the concept that we’re discussing. Are we using the word as it actually means in the dictionary or are we using the word as it means as a matter legality (which at its most basic boils down to punishment for restitution, usually in the form of money and/or jail)? I’m not going to use the legal term as I’m not addressing the question of consequences here.

So, to be “accountable” to something means that one party (in this case, either a single superhero or the group as a whole) is expected to be able to justify their actions/decisions. That’s it. A justification. Now, whether or not that justification is valid or results in consequences we cannot accept is, again, delving into the “what if” abyss (clarification still incoming) and collateral damage (that I’m not addressing here). If we use this definition of accountable, then the Avengers have been accountable for their actions. They need a valid reason to mobilize - which, honestly, they have not been lacking up to this point. 

Just to use the first Avenger’s movie as an example. Loki was planning on taking over the entire world. It just so happens that he set up shop in New York, which was conveniently under the jurisdiction of SHIELD. He could’ve set up shop in Sydney or Moscow or Bogota or some random field in Iran. It doesn’t matter where he opened up the portal. If the problem wasn’t addressed as immediately as it had been, then the repercussions would have very quickly become a global problem. The Avengers would have justified going anywhere in the world at that point, even against the wishes of that local government. People can hem and haw about sovereignty all day but ultimately, whatever is going on in their backyard is going to affect a lot more that just their backyard and they can’t just sit on it until it becomes a bigger problem and then beg for help when things are already too broken to salvage.

Now don’t get me wrong, this is not to say that disregarding a nation’s sovereignty okay. If a country doesn’t want the Avengers to come in and the Avengers come in anyway, they would absolutely infringing on sovereignty. There’s no doubt about that. There is also definitely potential for abuse of power in a small group of powerful people. Just look at our own world and the powers that be both in front of and behind the curtain. Look at the justified distrust we have in our own governing bodies and police forces and how outrageous abuse of powers in our world every day affects our lives and our trust in the institutions that are suppose to serve us. I’m not surprised that people use our own world’s elite and powerful with their terrible selfishness and personal agendas to call for control of the activities of super beings that would otherwise be running rampant, without a lid on what they can and can’t do. But if your argument is that superheroes can potentially abuse their power, well, you’ve just argued yourself into a corner because you cannot then dismiss the potential abuse of the governments either. Governments are made of people, after all. 

And regardless of your feelings about individual or governmental sovereignty, at what point do we say that a situation is beyond the sovereignty of one nation or group? Do you let a raging fire in one apartment unit in a crowded building keep on burning just because the owner of that particular unit doesn’t want the firefighters to come in? Or let’s hit closer to home, do you let a terrorist organization steal a deadly biological weapon from a country whose government just so happens to not want outside intervention for whatever reason? And that reason can be absolutely legitimate. But that kind of weapon isn’t a problem just for the local government. A biological weapon, which let’s say is a deadly virus, doesn’t just affect the people of the country from which it was stolen because in that scenario, what’s to stop the organization from moving out of the country and dropping the weapon in the middle of, say, the olympic opening or closing games? When people from around the world gather and presumably will eventually go back to their respective countries and continue the spread? Is that global enough? Why was this theft not prevented in the first place, then, when the threat can cause so much damage? Which then loops around and goes back to the local government didn’t want interference and now it affects the entire world? How do you know? How would you know for sure? 

And that’s the thing: you won’t. 

And thus my abyss concept. These are just scenarios. They always end in an impasse that doesn’t actually do anything to solve the problem at hand. Scenarios, by their very nature, are subject to the whims of chance and circumstance. We can’t account for every scenario. No one can. There are infinite “what ifs” that easily subvert a position no matter which side one may fall on. There are any number of scenarios that make the person/party on the opposing side appear wrong. It’s not hard to create a no win scenario. It happens every day. We don’t have the benefit of hindsight when it comes to the future. Life is an especially terrible and absolutely exhilarating thing because it’s so unpredictable. We live in the now; with limited resources, limited knowledge and limited options. If you try to cover all your bases on all the possibilities, you wind up in this abyss of “BUT WHAT IF [fill in the blank]???”, ad nauseum, talking in circles forever and in the end not get anywhere meaningful. Therefore, in this particular discussion, one focusing on principle without the factor of practice, you have to let go of that knee jerk reaction to think up confounding situations since that’s not come into play just yet. 

So what is the core question being asked here? The foremost yes or no principle that you’re faced with that will ultimately decide which side you fall on. 

And on a side note: for this train of thought to work, you need first to approach the Accords as if you were the hero / enhanced / mutant / meta-human / whatever-term-you-want that is being asked to sign this document. You have to determine whether or not you as a person would be able to sign this thing and then honor with that decision. You have to decide whether you want to be a hero or a soldier. (This side note brought to you by the “I have no idea where else to put this” brigade).

So again, the question at hand? The funny thing is, there’s actually two questions, in my opinion. They’re separate and different but equally important.  
First: Do you believe yourself to be a hero?  
Second: Do you want to shoulder the burden of that belief?

Only in the presence of the affirmative of both those questions do you reject oversight of the Accords. If even one of your answers to these questions is “no”, then you’re potentially in favor of the Accords. There are potential villains in any of these combinations as well, but that’s a different discussion altogether.

To expand upon the first question:  
Do you believe that you will be able to look at a situation and put aside your own safety/desires to help someone else? To put someone else or group above yourself, no matter? Do you think that given any circumstance, you would have the moral character to choose to do the right thing, whatever that right thing may be?

As for the second question, (which is somewhat more complicated) There’s a divergence of answers from the first question, but the follow up needs to be individually tailored since we’re excluding people who wouldn’t be offered the choice of a signature in the first place.  
If the answer to the first question is yes, then are you willing to stand by that choice no matter what? Do you see yourself putting someone else, a total stranger, above yourself over and over again? Do you even want to make that choice?  
If the answer to the first question is no, then are you willing to cede that decision to someone or an institution who/that does have the capacity to make the right choice.

There are four combinations of answers:  
Yes/Yes, Yes/No  
No/Yes, No/No

The first combination: No/No. I’m going to toss this one out because I don’t think this one actually factors into the conversation. If the answers are no (you don’t think you’re capable of making the right call) and no (you’re not willing to cede to someone else’s authority). Congratulations, you’re Loki. (or like, Tony Stark before Civil War)

The second combination: Yes/Yes. Essentially, if you answer yes to both, you then you cannot in good conscience sign the Accords. You presumably have everyone’s best interests at heart and truly believe that whatever situation you’re given, you’ll to try and do the right thing no matter what. The way I see it, if you truly believe that you’re making the right call, you cannot give up the decision making position to anyone else because then you don’t own that choice, then it wouldn’t have been your choice. The pivotal part of this whole scenario is that you, as an individual, is making the choice to do the right thing. And maybe someone else will agree with your choice, and that’s great. But that’s not the issue. This stance becomes a problem when everyone around you disagrees with you—when you think that the right thing is the opposite of what someone, a group of people or even the whole world is telling you. In the end YOU have to make and own that choice, against everyone else. If you are willing to do that, then at least on principle, you have the potential to be a hero. The act of making that choice is what makes you a hero. And you can’t give up your right to choose.

The other side has two combinations: The Yes/No and No/Yes answers. (I’m grouping these together because they will effectively wind up in the same place) These are the type of people who would sign the Accords. In this case, you yourself may or may not be able to choose the right thing in the end and you recognize it. However, that self awareness doesn’t matter if you can or will make the right choice because you either can’t/won’t make the right choice or you just don’t want the burden of making that choice. The need for a decision doesn’t go away just because you don’t want to make it so the only option is to give it to someone else. In this case, you’re a soldier. Not inherently a bad thing, but again, giving up the right to choose makes all the difference in the world. It doesn’t matter who you are as a person. You are capable of doing good deeds, sure, but that wasn’t your decision. Someone else told you to do so. That doesn’t make your actions worth nothing—it’s worth something because something good came out of it—but that good act does not wholly belong to you because you gave up the right to choose to do it in the first place. (Note: I’m not saying a soldier is incapable of being a hero. They can. That’s a different situation.) Now having said all of that, it is perfectly reasonable to want someone else to take the reigns. Some people are willing to make the tough decisions, others are not. And that’s OKAY. Not everyone wants to be a hero. Not everyone is cut out to be a hero.

But that’s what makes heroes so special in the first place. They’re the best among us that are willing to make the the choice that they think is right, even when the rest of the universe is against them, even if the right thing requires personal sacrifice, even when it’s the hardest thing they will ever have to do. Which brings me back to the problem with signing the Accords. If you want to be or think of yourself capable and willing to be a hero, you can’t sign the Accords—definitely not on a philosophical or even practical level.

You may think, how dare someone make the arrogant assumption that they know best? What gives any one person or small group of people, in this case those who happen to have super powers, the right to think that they can make the right decision in any given situation? And you’d be absolutely correct. It’s an arrogant assumption of any one person (or small group) to think that yes, I(we) am(are) capable of making the right call in any given situation. But the thing is - you cannot avoid that arrogance no matter what. There is a decision to be made and SOMEONE has to make it. It’s just a matter of who. In every decision that was made, is made, and will be made in the history of time, there is someone making the arrogant assumption of having made the right call. Also, no one is asking someone to make a decision in a void. As with any choice, you consider all sides. You’re allowed to consult people and take into considerations their feelings and reservations. Those different perspectives might even change your mind or it may not. In the end, it doesn’t matter. You can’t escape the need for a decision to be made. Who you want to make that decision will determine whether or not you sign on the dotted line.

I believe in the inherent goodness of heroes. And I believe that they will try their damn hardest to make the right call, regardless of circumstance. That’s what makes them heroes in the first place. To ask them to give up their right to choose, to take away the thing that makes them heroes, is asking someone to not be true to themselves. And honestly, I don’t think that’s a fair thing to try and force anyone to give up. 

And that’s why I’m Team Cap.

If you’re still thinking “but wait!” what about the other side of the equation? What about the perspective of a normal human looking at these god-like beings running rampant? What safeguards are there, then to protect the people who can’t protect themselves? Well, I’m going to posit that the perspective of the non-powered individual doesn’t change anything and doesn’t even factor into the equation. Yes, there may be a gut reaction of mistrust. You don’t trust someone else to do the right thing. You don’t trust someone with power to use it properly. You’re afraid that something will go wrong and there will be consequences that are terrible. And they’re valid things to consider on the side of practicality. There absolutely needs to be protections when things go wrong. Not having safeguards is negligence. However, that albeit valid apprehension is jumping ahead in the line of logic. You’re falling into the trap of that “what if” abyss that doesn’t lead anywhere. If you can place yourself in the setting of a super-powered individual and actually believe yourself to be capable and willing to the the right thing, you should be able to assume that someone else in the same situation is capable of the same on principle. I’m not saying that a hero can’t make bad decisions. I’m not saying that hero can’t turn evil or that things go wrong even with the best of intentions (it happens all the time). But, again, that’s the “what if” abyss that’s beside the point and it’s not the discussion we’re having.

And if after all this, you truly can’t see a world in which someone, even if it’s only one person in the entire universe, who can say yes to both questions and be true to the spirit of those questions, then the real issue here is not oversight or accountability. The real issue is that you don’t believe in the idea of heroes. You don’t believe that there can be inherent goodness in certain people that make them capable of choosing to do the right thing of their own free will. Which is valid. That’s your view of the world. I just don’t agree with it. Call me an idealist. Call me a pipe dreamer. That’s fine. On principle, that is absolutely what I am. I originally said that there was two questions to the heart of the Accords, but in reality, there is actually just one. 

Do you believe in heroes?

**Author's Note:**

> That was way too many words just to say “I believe in idea of heroes”, which I think most people can agree without the fancy bells and whistles. Thanks, brain, for your pretty much useless meandering. I feel like I haven’t gotten anywhere and I’m not sure if I’ve even made a point that even makes sense. Feel free to pick this apart. Feel free to bring up angles I haven’t thought of. I am, after all, just one person throwing some ideas around.


End file.
